Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
13-05-22 Email From Skyhook's Counsel to Google's Re. Rule 11

13-05-22 Email From Skyhook's Counsel to Google's Re. Rule 11

Ratings: (0)|Views: 25|Likes:
Published by Florian Mueller
May 22, 2013 email from Skyhook's counsel to Google's counsel re. forthcoming motion for Rule 11 sanctions
May 22, 2013 email from Skyhook's counsel to Google's counsel re. forthcoming motion for Rule 11 sanctions

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Florian Mueller on Jun 11, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/11/2013

pdf

text

original

 
EXHIBIT C
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 176-3 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 4
 
 
May 22, 2013William F. Abrams
BY EMAIL
King & Spalding333 Twin Dolphin DriveSuite 400Redwood Shores, CA 94065wabrams@kslaw.com Re: Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google, Inc.Case No. 1:10-cv-11571-RWZDear Bill:This letter responds to your letter of May 1, 2013 to Azra Hadzimehmedovic and the attached draftmotion for Rule 11 sanctions.We and Skyhook do not take allegations of sanctionable conduct lightly. We have reviewed your letter and draft motion carefully and do not believe that your allegations are well taken or that thedraft motion is meritorious. Accordingly, Skyhook will not agree to dismiss with prejudice itsclaims of infringement with respect to Skyhook's U.S. Patent No. 8,031,657, as you havedemanded.Your allegations and draft motion are based on erroneous legal and factual premises and amisreading of the claims of the 657 patent for at least the following reasons.First, you contend that the Court's construction of the term "arterial bias" in the Skyhook 694 and988 patents mandates that the claims of the 657 patent require systematic data collection usingscanning vehicles, in order to avoid bias. That is clearly not correct, as a review of the Court's ClaimConstruction Order and a comparison of the claims of the 694, 988, and 657 patents confirms.Rather, the Court construed "arterial bias" in the 694 and 988 patents to mean
"[t]he deviation of thecalculated position information for a Wi-Fi access point toward heavily trafficked roads and away from the actual geographic location of the access point that occurs when data is collected by scanning vehicles that traverse heavily trafficked roads at the expense of smaller, surrounding  streets." 
Markman Order p. 9. The term "arterial bias" in the 694 and 988 patents was part of thelonger phrase "avoid(s) arterial bias." In construing the term "avoid(s) arterial bias" in the 694 and988 patents – a term that does not appear in the claims of the 657 patent – the Court rejectedGoogle's attempt to limit those patents to either any algorithm or the complete eliminationof arterial bias. The term "avoid(s) arterial bias" in the 694 and 988 patents was thus interpreted tomean simply "reduce(s)
 significantly
the effects of arterial bias." In contrast to the claims of the 694and 988 patents, the claims of the 657 patent do not require the avoidance of arterial bias, but rather merely the reduction of it. Accordingly, the 657 patent claims then must require something even lessthan "reduce(s) significantly the effects of arterial bias."
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 176-3 Filed 06/10/13 Page 2 of 4
 
 William F. AbramsMay 22, 2013Page 2
 
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 360
 
I
Redwood
Sho
es
,
CA
94065
I
T
650-802-6000
I
F650-802-6001
I
t
enseg
rit
y
law
g
oup
.c
om
 
Second, you contend that the Court's construction of "calculated position information" in the 694 and988 patents also requires systematic data collection using scanning vehicles. The Court construed"calculated position information" in the 694 and 988 patents to mean "
[e]stimated physical location(s) of Wi-Fi access points calculated using characteristics of signals transmitted by such Wi- Fi access points, which Wi-Fi access points have been collected systematically, i.e., in a manner inwhich all the streets in target area are covered.
" But while the 694 and 988 claims require that thedatabase include records for "substantially all Wi-Fi access points in the target area," the 657 patentclaims only require "a plurality of Wi-Fi access points in the target area." Therefore, there is nological reason that "calculated position information" in the 657 patent claims would require that Wi-Fi access points be calculated in the manner required by the Court's construction of that term for the694 and 988 patents.Third, you also contend that statements made by Skyhook's prior counsel at the claim constructiontutorial for the 694 and 988 patents stand for the proposition that the claims of the 657 patent relateonly to the collection of Wi-Fi access point location data using scanning vehicles and not to access point data collected from user devices. We disagree that the statements made at the tutorial arelimiting in the way you contend. Those statements were clearly not made with respect to the 657 patent claims, and in fact, Skyhook's prior counsel expressly limited its tutorial statements, whichGoogle now relies upon, to the 694 and 988 patents by referring repeatedly to "these patents" or "these two patents."
See
Google's May 1, 2013 Letter at 2;
 see also, e.g.
, Hrg. Tr. at 47:16-17("THE COURT: But neither patent uses, or maybe the technology doesn't call for it under anycircumstances, whatever data may be returned from the user, that is, the person that they're trying tofind based on where that person is found. MR. LU: The two, these two patents do not.
There areother implementations and Skyhook does in fact use that data
.") (emphasis added). The claims of the 657 patent were not at issue during the tutorial or the claim construction hearing on the 694 and988 patent, and as discussed above, differ in important ways from the claims that were the subject of the then-pending claim construction. In any event, those statements of course are not evidence withrespect to the meaning of any claims, were made in a non-adversarial proceeding, and cannot formthe basis of a judicial estoppel.Moreover, even if collection of Wi-Fi access point data by user devices was not always systematic – something Skyhook does not concede – the sheer volume of deployed Android devices nowcollecting data from Wi-Fi access points (well over 200 million Android smartphones and tabletshave now been activated in the US), as well as the establishment of Google's geolocation databasesand services through the systematic collection by CityBlock vehicles in the past, makes currentcollection by those devices systematic, or at a minimum, equivalent to systematic.To be clear, Skyhook contends that the claims of the 657 patent, as well as all other assertedSkyhook patents, were and are infringed by Google, both before and after Google asserts it ceased itsCityBlock collection of Wi-Fi access point data.
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 176-3 Filed 06/10/13 Page 3 of 4

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->